Questions About 2016 Ecology Center Car Seat Flame Retardant Report

The Ecology Center has released its semiannual car seat flame retardant report which tests a variety of popular car seats for flame retardants. Each year it is controversial. However, each year it seems to prompt the industry to make strides toward healthier car seats.

This year is no exception.

NOTE: Car seats in cars save lives. The safest place for child in a moving vehicle is in a rear-facing car seat in the backseat, properly installed, firmly strapped in with the chest clip at armpit level.

See our full CBS news report on the study at CBSSF.com:

“New Car Seat Study Finds Fewer Chemicals, But Concerns Linger“

However, as usual, the Ecology Center study is raising a lot of questions, more than I could ever get into in a TV news story. So, here’s my #ReportersNotebook – a sort of Q&A addressing many of the things that didn’t make it into the news report.

If you’re new to our coverage of flame retardants in car seats, I suggest you browse our continuing coverage page first.

Skim the summary of our year-long investigation at:

Ecology Center Car Seat Flame Retardant Q&A

Click on your question of interest to see the answer, or simply scroll down:

Question 1: Isn’t this just fear mongering? 

Question 2: What are the highlights of the 2016 Ecology Center Car Seat Flame Retardant Study? 

Question 3:  Why did the Ecology Center choose Britax & Maxi-Cosi as the top two seats?

Question 4: The Ecology center found a form of Tris in the Britax.  Should I be concerned?

Question 5: The Maxi-Cosi doesn’t have any flame retardants in the foam. How is that possible?

Question 6: So does that mean ALL Britax & Maxi-Cosi car seats contain the same chemicals?

Question 7: What parts of the car seat contain flame retardants?

Question 8: Why does Table 10 show that they all contain lead and chlorine? Should I be concerned?

Question 9: Why did Clek and Orbit get moderate recommendations?

Question 10: Which car seat would you buy, Julie?

Question 11: UPPAbaby announced it is releasing a 2017 car seat without any flame retardants. How can their foam pass the flammability standard?  And how do we know they are telling the truth?

Question 12: So, a car seat can meet the flammability standard without flame retardants. Does the current flammability standard still need to be changed?

Have more questions? Post them in the comments below. We will accept anonymous questions. 

Question 1: Isn’t this just fear mongering? 

I’ll let the Ecology Center’s Lead Researcher, Jeff Gearhart, answer that.

Communicating data and information to the public about product hazards should be everyone’s mission. Due to chemical industry commitment to secrecy, public interest advocates have to literally reverse engineer products to give consumers the information they have a right to.

Every year following the Ecology Center study, car seat safety advocates take to the web and private Facebook pages criticizing the report as fear mongering. The fear, according to many critics, is that this information will prevent people from using car seats. They go as far as to say that “kids don’t eat their car seat” so you should not be concerned.

Let’s begin by reminding folks that car seats are required by law in all 50 states. Nothing in this report should imply that your child is, in any way, safer in a vehicle without a car seat.

Let’s also point out that there are decades of peer-reviewed studies that show flame retardants break down and migrate into dust, which kids inhale or ingest through hand-to-mouth contact. Many infants spend the majority of their time in car seats, both in and out of the car. Peer-reviewed studies find the chemicals in high levels inside children’s bodies.

Car seat companies are not required to disclose which chemicals are in their car seats and most refuse to do so citing proprietary information. Gearhart says the Ecology Center car seat report is not intended to needlessly scare parents, rather to hold manufactures accountable and provide information that parents would not otherwise have access to.

The results of this study have repeatedly revealed false or misleading advertising, though the Ecology Center does not highlight that in its report. Instead, researchers simply provide the raw data and allow parents and journalists like myself to investigate discrepancies between the data and the car seat manufacturers’ claims. As a result, we’re better able to hold companies accountable, especially those that charge a premium for products because they claim to be free of concerning retardants.

The net result: More companies are working on green engineering solutions. Since last year’s study alone, the industry has made significant strides toward safer (chemically speaking) car seats. Several manufacturers told me on background that the fallout from last year’s study, and our resulting investigation, has influenced their policies moving forward.

I won’t get into the specifics of chemical concerns here, see our continuing coverage for that. I’ll simply note that the American Academy of Pediatrics, International Firefighters Association, green scientists, consumer advocates, fire scientists and the manufacturers themselves have all publicly called for changes (these are groups that don’t all generally agree on things).

That said, the presence of these chemicals in your kid’s car seat does NOT mean they are going to get cancer.

As Bryan Goodman of the American Chemistry Council points out, “It is important to note that the presence of a chemical in a product does not necessarily mean that the product is harmful to human health or that these products are not in compliance with safety standards and laws.”

Not all of these chemicals have known health concerns. Many do, but it is important to remember that not all smokers get cancer and not everyone exposed to cancer-causing chemicals will either.

However, studies show that reducing exposure reduces risk and there is limited health safety data on the long-term and combined effects of these chemicals in your body. 

Many believe that they should have the right to reduce their child’s exposure by choosing a product with fewer chemicals. Since the manufactures don’t reveal that information, they rely on studies like these.

Return To Questions

Question 2: What are the highlights of the 2016 Ecology Center Car Seat Flame Retardant Study?

Their key findings:

• First-ever flame retardant-free car seat coming soon — In 2017, for the first time, a car seat marketed as free of FRs will be on the market produced by UPPABaby.   The “Henry”, a new infant car seat in their “Mesa” line, leaves out chemical FRs in favor of a wool blend to meet regulations. The FR-free Henry will be available in the spring of next year.
• Flame retardants are still widespread – Aside from the UPPAbaby seat, FRs were found in all of the car seats that were tested, and for the first time were found to be in widespread use in the fabrics of car seats.
• Most car seats still contain brominated flame retardants (BFRs) — This is concerning, as brominated chemicals are typically persistent, bioaccumulative, and often toxic.Alternatives to BFRs have not been tested for toxicity — Manufacturers have stopped using some flame retardants with known hazards, but the health effects of many of the substitutes are unknown.

Return To Questions

Question 3: Why did the Ecology Center choose Britax & Maxi-Cosi as the top two seats?

The Britax Marathon ClickTight Convertible Car Seat (in Vibe), and the Maxi-Cosi Pria 70 Convertible Car Seat (blue base) were the only two car seats tested that did not contain any brominated flame retardants or chemicals in any component of the car seat.

The Maxi-Cosi fabric tested positive for one Phosperous-based retardant, Triethyl phosphate (TEP). Surprisingly, they found no retardants in the Maxi-Cosi foam. They found two Phosperous-based retardants in the Britax foam, TEP and Tris(2-butoxyethyl) phosphate (TBEP). There were no retardants found in the Britax fabric.

Overall, Phosphorus-based retardants are believed to be safer than Chlorinated or Brominated retardants. However, scientists say that health-safety data is lacking and more research is needed.

Return To Questions

Question 4: The Ecology center found a form of Tris in the Britax.  Should I be concerned?

Correction, they found a chemical in the Britax that has the word “tris” in it. In layman’s terms, Tris translates to “three” and there are various versions of FRs that may contain the word Tris or be referred to as Tris.

Chlorinated Tris (TDCPP, TCPP) is likely the version that you’re most  familiar with. One version, TDCPP, is listed as “known to cause cancer” by the state of California and any product sold in CA that that contains the chemical must have a warning label. For the first time this year the study found no Chlorinated Tris (TDCPP or TCPP) in any car seat models tested.

The Ecology Center clarifies that the TBEP found in the Britax and TDCPP are related in that “they’re both phosphates with three organic groups bound to the P atom.” However, the big difference is that TDCPP has chlorine atoms.

There is evidence of much greater health concerns associated with TDCPP.

According to the Ecology Center, the phosphate-based “Tris” found in the Britax does raise “some” health concerns. They found:

No studies on long-term toxicity or carcinogenicity. Anti-estrogenic and other hormone effects in vitro. TBEP was in 100% of indoor dust samples from houses in North America. Found in urine in adults and children and in breast milk.

World Health Organization says general health risk is low. Detected in air around the Great Lakes and in the Arctic.

However, the Ecology Center says it chose the Britax as one of its top two seats based on the company’s strides toward safer, greener solutions. Because Britax was one of only two car seats that did not contain any brominated retardants, it received a top honor.

Return To Questions

Question 5: The Maxi-Cosi doesn’t have any flame retardants in the foam. How is that possible?

Credit: Jeff Gearhart, Ecology Center

I don’t know, and neither does the Ecology Center. Foam is the most commonly treated element of the car seat because it is generally highly flammable. It is not clear how this foam passes the federal flammability standard without retardants.

I have reached out to them, and so has the Ecology Center, and neither of us have heard back.

The inside of the foam of this particular Maxi-Cosi does look different than most polyurethane foam we see in car seats. It appears it may be “laminated,” similar to the soon-to-be-released UppaBaby car seat that is advertised to be flame-retardant free (more on that below).

Keep  in mind, the Ecology Center is only reporting what it found. It did not identify a flame retardant, or at least no known retardants, in the Maxi-Cosi foam.

They did find the phosphate-based flame retardant Triethyl phosphate (TEP) in the Maxi-Cosi Fabric. TEP does not pose a significant health risk for humans according to the Ecology Center and they found no other flame retardants anywhere else in the seat.

At first glance, it appears this is the closest product to a flame-retardant-free toddler seat on the market. However without verification from the company there is no way to confirm that.

Return To Questions

Question 6: So does that mean ALL Britax & Maxi-Cosi car seats contain the same chemicals?

Probably not. We have found that flame retardants and chemicals vary from year to year, model to model, color to color and fabric to fabric within the same brands. We know that one of the most concerning flame retardants, Chlorinated Tris (TDCPP), was found in only certain models of the popular “green” Orbit Baby and Clek car seats.

 The point of the study is not to ensure that any car seat you buy from these manufactures will only have these chemicals. It is to highlight car seat companies that are making green strides.

Return To Questions

Question 7: What parts of the car seat contain flame retardants?

This year the Ecology Center tested 300 car seat components including the hard plastic, cup holders, warning labels, Velcro, fabric, etc. Surprisingly, they found flame retardants in many components where, according to the Ecology Center, flame retardants “would provide no apparent safety benefit.”

Also surprising, this year they found many car seat fabrics were treated with flame retardants, including the Maxi-Cosi. Flame retardants in car seats fabrics are not as well studied as those in the foam. While some fabrics can be flame resistant without added retardants, the foam that is commonly used inside car seat covers is flammable and generally needs to be treated to pass the required federal open flame test.

Many of the car seat fabrics, which are in direct contact with the child’s skin, tested positive this year for concerning brominated retardants.  All of the upholstery fabrics tested were polyester.

Return To Questions

Question 8: The Ecology Center said that, for the first time, they did not find any chlorinated flame retardants or concerning heavy metals like lead or arsenic. Why does Table 10 show that they all contain lead and chlorine? Should I be concerned?

According to the Ecology Center, no.

Let’s start with lead. The allowable level for lead in toys, set by the Consumer Product Safety Commission, is 100ppb. All of the car seats tested far below the allowable limit.

Chlorine is a bit more complicated. The Ecology Center is not concerned about chlorine specifically, they are testing for chlorine as a component of a flame retardant. They explain that it is not the chlorine itself that is a health concern; rather they say it is the chemical makeup of the chlorinated flame retardants.

In past studies, they set a threshold of chlorine to identify retardants. They found that for the most part, if a product had a certain amount of chlorine in it, then it would later test positive as a chlorinated flame retardant. They determined that a chlorine presence at lower levels could have been due to a variety of other things, like salt, exposure, etc. Low levels of chlorine in and of itself do not constitute a health risk, according to the Ecology Center.

It’s worth noting that the Ecology Center did find relatively high levels of chlorine (around 2% ppm) in the anti-rebound bar on a Clek car seat and lower levels of chlorine in the blue upholstery fabric.  However, two different testing mechanism did not find chlorinated FRs in the fabric so the Ecology Center is calling it undetermined chlorine.

In an email response to me, Clek said:

To answer your question about the unidentified chlorine: a product can have free chemicals, like chlorine, without it being a flame retardant. In our regular on-going 3rd party testing, free chlorine (the atomic element chlorine) is also identified, but not as a flame retardant. The testing completed by the Ecology Center confirms the same (page 12) – “We did not identify FRs in Clek’s fabric..”.

For more on Clek’s commitment to be free of brominated and chlorinated retardants…

ALSO SEE: “Now Our Clek Car Seat Tested Positive for TDCPP“

The company responded effectively and immediately when we notify it that we found TDCPP in one of their car seats last year. They identified a small production that was affected and immediately issued a voluntary recall.

Return To Questions

Question 9: Why did Clek and Orbit get moderate recommendations?

The Ecology Center gave Clek and Orbit moderate recommendations, their second highest category, because they say they are two of the companies making the greatest strides to be free of halogenated flame retardants.

Aside from a small component in each car seat, the study only found phosphorous-based retardants in the Clek and Orbit.

Researchers did find relatively high levels (2%) of bromine in a Clek warning label. That was the primary reason they gave the Clek a moderate recommendation. They note that while the label is a relatively small component, it is right on the surface of the seat and would not necessarily need to be treated with brominated chemicals.

While that level of bromine in a fabric can indicate a BFR, the warning label had an insufficient mass for testing, so they were not able to identify the source of bromine.

The study did find retardants in other car seat warning labels. It is worth noting that researchers say the seats with screen-printed labels, rather than fabric labels, did not have Br or other concerning chemicals.

Researchers also found bromine in the Velcro in the Orbit car seat. However, they were able to test this component and did identify that it was a brominated flame retardant.

The study found brominated retardants in the Orbit Velcro underneath the fabric that held together the head, back, and bottom fabric panels of the car seat.

Note: Orbit Baby Recently announced it will no longer be manufacturing car seats and is selling off its current stock at a discount. 

Return To Questions

Question 10: Which car seat would you buy, Julie?

People ask me this all the time. I won’t answer the question publicly for many reasons, not the least of which, I’m a reporter. I don’t do endorsements.

I have previously reported on, and purchased, both the Orbit and Clek car seats based on rave reviews from green scientists and experts in the industry. Both of my daughter’s Orbit and Clek car seats later tested positive for TDCPP. Clearly, there is no way to be certain of what is actually in your car seat unless you test it.

ALSO SEE: How I Found “Cancer-Causing” Flame Retardants In My Child And Car Seat

That said, it appears that according to the Ecology Center’s tests, that the Maxi-Cosi Pria 70 Convertible Car Seat (blue base) is the only car seat model we know of, currently on the market, that does not contain any flame retardants of notable concern. However, it is still unclear how they pass the current flammability standard without retardants in their foam.

By the looks of the sample that the Ecology Center tested, they may also be laminating the foam like UPPAbaby plans to do next year. However, unlike Maxi, UPPA says their fabric will also be flame-retardant free.

Return To Questions

Question 11: UPPAbaby announced it is releasing a 2017 car seat without any flame retardants. How can their foam pass the flammability standard?  And how do we know they are telling the truth?

The Ecology Center, and other trusted researchers who I spoke with on background, have independently tested samples of the upcoming 2017 UPPAbaby Mesa Henry infant car seat. I asked for a sample, but UPPAbaby said they did not have any immediately available.

I’ve spoken at length with the company and third-party experts who have tested the product. By all reports, it appears UPPAbaby has engineered a way to pass the current flammability standards without flame retardants.

In simple terms, the federal flammability standard requires that each individual component of a car seat pass an open flame test. Foam is flammable and on its own cannot generally pass without added flame retardants. UPPAbaby’s naturally flame-resistant-wool-blend batting is not flammable and will pass the test.

In most car seats, the foam is separate from the fabric or sewn into the fabric after the fact, so they are considered two separate components.

UPPAbaby has laminated the wool batting to the foam. My understanding is that because it cannot be separated, the wool-laminated-foam is considered one component and can be tested as one component. Instead of directly applying the test flame to the foam interior, the flame would be applied to the naturally-fire-resistant wool batting exterior.

Return To Questions

Question 12: So, a car seat can meet the flammability standard without flame retardants. Does the current flammability standard still need to be changed?

Yes, according to the Ecology Center, manufacturers, consumer groups, fire scientists and green scientists (groups that don’t general agree on things).

Federal regulators have long contended that the standard can be met without flame retardants, but manufactures argued that it would be too expensive for mass-production. That still appears to be the case.

UPPAbaby has demonstrated that companies, who really care, can find a way to make a FR-free car seat under the current regulations. However, it is costly. As a result, UPPAbaby will only make one model of their car seats that is FR free. One model. One fabric. And there will not be an FR-free seat for toddlers, infants only.

If there is a high demand and it becomes a lucrative line for the company, it would make sense that UPPAbaby would expand their FR-free engineering to other car seats.

However, the car seat is expensive. At $350 is unlikely that most American families, especially those with multiple kids, can afford to run out and buy the first FR-free car seat.

Uppa had added a $50 premium to the FR free seat, though it is worth noting that all of the top ranking car seats in the Ecology Center study range in price from $250- $450. None are priced to be accessible for most American families.

Jeff Gerhardt of the Ecology Center stresses that “It is a matter of basic fundamental justice that every child in the country have access to an affordable healthy car seat.”

Congressman Jared Huffman introduced legislation that would force regulators to update the flammability standard for car seats, similar to a recent revision to the California furniture flammability standard. The standard relies on smolder resistant outer fabrics or barrier fabrics. Flame retardants would no longer be necessary.

The Ecology Center, leading consumer groups, fire scientists and green scientists are all supporting the legislation that was introduced into the House Energy and Commerce committee in May. However, it has been largely ignored.

The popular blogger, Natural Baby Mama, has launched a change.org petition asking the Committee Chairman Fred Upton to bring it up for a vote. 

According to the Ecology Center and manufacturers that I’ve spoken with, the legislation would allow some car seat manufactures to almost immediately begin manufacturing affordable flame retardant-free car seats.

In the meantime, for those who can afford it, it appears that the first flame-retardant-free car seat will soon be on the market. The UPPAbaby is expected in early 2017. But again, only one model, one fabric, and for infants only.

Return To Questions

Got more questions? Ask them below or on our Facebook page.

Freaked out? Don’t be! Check out our Resources for Parents for simple steps to help reduce exposure.

FOLLOW-UP NOTE: I have asked the UPPAbaby CEO to sit down with me for a Facebook live interview where you can join in and as questions. Follow this post on Facebook for upcoming details.